Mst. BHAKHAN and others vs Mst. GHULAM JANAT and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had been challenged in Civil Revision proceedings. The petition was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay, contending that the delay was neither intentional nor willful but resulted from office objections raised during the filing process. The Supreme Court examined the application and noted that the petitioners failed to explain the delay of each day satisfactorily. The Court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure proceedings are instituted in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and that the petitioners must suffer the consequences of their failure to comply with these procedural requirements. Consequently, the Court held that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay of each day, the request for condonation cannot be granted. The petition was dismissed as being barred by time.
- Is a petitioner required to explain the delay of each day when seeking condonation of delay in filing a petition?
- Does the failure to file a petition in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay?
- Can a petition be dismissed solely on the grounds of being barred by time when the delay is not satisfactorily explained?
- Supreme Court Rules, 1980
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 6th November, 2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,1278- D of 1997.
2. This petition is barred by time, Civil Miscellaneous No,1097-L of 2003 has been filed for seeking condonation of delay wherein it has been admitted that after removing office objection the same has been refilled but till then little bit delay occurred, which is neither international nor willful but due to objection raised by the office hence condonation of delay.
3. It may be noted that office has returned the tile to learned Advocate-on-Record as it was not filed in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and in such view of the matter it is the petitioner who is bound to suffer for not instituting the proceedings according to rules, therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay because in the application delay of each day has not been explained satisfactorily. Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Muhammad Raza and others v. Mst. Aalia and others 1987 SCM R 1818.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed being barred by time.